Author Topic: Confused about what priests are saying (Read 1302 times)

dreamtomorrow · « **on:** December 30, 2013, 07:50:25 PM »

I've spoken to two priests, one Society, another independent but supports the society (he's listed on their website). I know neither personally. They both said the Archbishop NEVER said Rome needed to return to tradition before making an agreement. Has anyone else came across this? I'm confused because I've seen many quotes where A. Lefebvre stressed that. Are they unaware of them?

B from A · « **Reply #1 on:** December 30, 2013, 08:19:54 PM »

Maybe they are unaware. You could show them the quotes, so they are no longer unaware.

Quote

Rome and Society of St. Peter
February 1, 1989
Rector's letter (+BW):

...what Archbishop Lefebvre said in private a few weeks ago: - "Between
ourselves and Rome right now there is complete silence, thank goodness. ..... As for ourselves however, there is no problem. We have undergone another purification making the defense of Tradition more solid than ever. So if Rome wanted to re-open the dialogue, we would put the dogmatic problems in the fore-front. ...Now they must get the Council and the Decree on Religious Liberty into line with Tradition. Dogma first and foremost. But questions of dogma are far more difficult to arrange than questions of discipline. We can hope for no change so long as they think like modernists in Rome. Any change would mean for them signing the death warrant of everything they have been doing for the last 25 years".

- Archbishop Lefebvre:

Quote

“supposing that Rome calls for a renewed dialogue, then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being in the position where I was put during the dialogue. No more.
I will place the discussion at the doctrinal level: “Do you agree with the great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII, Pascendi Gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani Generis of Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these Popes and their teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you in favor of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no dialogue is possible. It is useless.””

(Fideliter n. 66 nov-dec 1988, pp. 12-13).

- Bishop Williamson:

Quote

“The greatest challenge to the SSPX in the next few years is to grasp the primacy of doctrine, and to measure everything else, and to pray, accordingly. In our sentimental world, the constant temptation is to go by feelings. Not going by feelings is what marked out Archbishop Lefebvre, and if in this respect we do not follow him, the SSPX will go the way of all flesh – into the arms of the (objective) destroyers of the Church. […] Doctrine, doctrine, doctrine!” (Angelus Press, 21 June 2008).

- Bishop Fellay :

Quote

“…the clear awareness of the much more profound key issue which we have just described, forbids us to place the two issues on an equal footing. It is so clear for us that the issue of the Faith and of the spirit of faith has priority over all that we cannot consider a practical solution before the first issue is safely resolved. (…)
For us, each day brings additional proof that we must clarify to a maximum the underlying issues before taking one more step toward a canonical situation, which is not in itself displeasing to us. But this is a matter of following the order of the nature of things, and to start from the wrong end would unavoidably place us in an unbearable situation. We have daily proofs of this. What is at stake is nothing more nor less than our future existence.”(Superior General's Letter to Friends and Benefactors no.73, 23 October 2008)

- Bishop de Galarreta :

Quote

“They evidently want to trouble us, to alarm us by pressuring us toward a purely practical agreement, which has always been the proposition of the cardinal [Hoyos]. Evidently you already know our thoughts. This way is a dead way; for us it is the road to death. Therefore there is no question of us following it. We cannot commit ourselves to betraying the public profession of Faith. Out of the question! It’s impossible.”
(Homily 27 June 2008, Ecône)
“This is not the moment to change the decision of the 2006 Chapter: no practical agreement without a solution to the doctrinal question.” (Report read at the Chapter in Albano 7 October 2011)

- Bishop Tissier de Mallerais :

Quote

“We refuse a purely practical agreement because the doctrinal question is fundamental. Faith comes before legality. We cannot accept a legalization without the problem of the faith being solved. (…) “It is a new religion that is not the Catholic religion. We do not want any compromise with this religion, any risk of corruption, not even any appearance of conciliation, and it is this appearance that our so-called "regularization" would give us.”
(Interview in Rivarol, 1st June 2012).

Quote

Bishop Bernard Fellay: As long as Vatican II and the New Mass remain the norm, an agreement with Rome is ѕυιcιdє.

Quote

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre:
For as long as this Secretariat [for the Unity of Christians] keeps the false ecuмenism as its orientation and Roman ecclesiastical authorities approve it, we can affirm that they remain in open, official rupture with all the past of the Church and with its official Magisterium. It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic Faith[/b].

Spiritual Journey
In that little book which he called his last will and testament

Quote

Archbishop Lefebvre to Pope John Paul II, 2 June 1988:
Given the refusal to consider our requests, and it being evident that the purpose of this reconciliation is not at all the same in the eyes of the Holy See as it is in our eyes, we believe it preferable to wait for times more propitious for the return of Rome to Tradition.

...We shall continue to pray for modern Rome, infested with Modernism, to become once more Catholic Rome and to rediscover its 2,000 year-old Tradition. Then the problem of our reconciliation will have no further reason to exist and the Church will experience a new youth.

Quote

Archbishop Lefebvre 1988
It is not for me to know when Tradition will regain its rights at Rome, but I think it is my duty to provide the means of doing that which I shall call "Operation Survival," operation survival for Tradition. Today, this day, is "Operation Survival". If I had made this deal with Rome, by continuing with the agreements we had signed, and by putting them into practice, I would have performed "Operation ѕυιcιdє." There was no choice, we must live! That is why today, by consecrating these bishops, I am convinced that I am continuing to keep Tradition alive, that is to say, the Catholic Church.

dreamtomorrow · « **Reply #2 on:** December 30, 2013, 08:28:37 PM »

Thank you for that! I did get one of their addresses, I'm always weary he'll/they'll say it's "taken out of context" but it seems clear to me. When I mentioned the Archbishop spoke against agreement uncoverted Rome the Society priest said he also warned against maverick priests, but I was unable to find any quotes other than media refering to +Lefebvre being a maverick Archbishop.

Unbrandable · « **Reply #3 on:** December 31, 2013, 12:51:42 AM »

Quote from: dreamtomorrow

I'm always weary he'll/they'll say it's "taken out of context" but it seems clear to me. When I mentioned the Archbishop spoke against agreement uncoverted Rome the Society priest said he also warned against maverick priests,

And since Archbishop Lefebvre isn't here to defend his statements, they conveniently try to change the meaning of his words to suit their purposes.

Here is a shocking statement made by Father Rostand last February (taken from TrueTrad.com).

February 8, 2013: SSPX.org published this interview with Fr. Rostand (the SSPX's United Statest District Superior), entitled "The Year in Review -SSPX 2012".

In the interview, Fr. Rostand redefines the SSPX’s longstanding condition that an agreement with Rome not occur until Rome is converted. Fr. Rostand says:

“The General Chapter discussed for a long time on what do we mean by a conversion of Rome. Well, I think it means mostly that Tradition would be supported enough to continue its growth and to be able to continue to work.”

It should be obvious to anyone that for unconverted Rome to allow tradition to grow and work, is very different from Rome being converted. Fr. Rostand is trying to “define” away the fact that the SSPX has changed its position.

JPaul · « **Reply #4 on:** December 31, 2013, 07:49:51 AM »

Quote

“The General Chapter discussed for a long time on what do we mean by a conversion of Rome. Well, I think it means mostly that Tradition would be supported enough to continue its growth and to be able to continue to work.”

A ridiculous and dishonest proposition. If Rome were to allow Tradition to grow and do its work, it would be helping to cut its own throat.

Converting "enough" is never going to happen. It is more likely that he means enough of the appearance of converting to make their joining it possible.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #5 on:** January 01, 2014, 11:40:14 PM »

.

TheRecusant #12 (Dec. 2013 Supplementary Issue) covers this topic extensively.

Page 2:

So, after ABL realized his mistake in signing the 5-88 protocol with

Rome, he laid down the following principle, which he maintained until

his death:

It is, therefore, a strict duty for every priest wanting to remain

Catholic to separate himself from this Conciliar Church for as long as it

does not rediscover the Tradition of the Church and of the Catholic

Faith. -- Spiritual Journey, Archbishop Lefebvre, p. 13

Here is another way ABL formulated the same principle:

we prefer to continue in Tradition, to keep tradition while waiting for

tradition to regain its place at rome, while waiting for Tradition to

resume its place in the roman authorities, in their minds. This will last

for as long as the Good Lord has foreseen.

---In speaking to priests, you can reference the same ARTICLE of the Summa that The Open Letter to Fr. Themann defers, to wit, IIa IIae, Q.57 a.2, ad 1. ---

Page 8:

Archbishop Lefebvre Recognized His Mistake In Signing the May

1988 Protocol and From Then Until His Death, He Maintained the

Principle NO Agreement with Unconverted Rome.

Showing he learned his lesson, ABL maintained until his death that he

would not even discuss an agreement with Rome until Rome

converted. Archbishop Lefebvre repeatedly showed his resolution not

to do what Bishop Fellay seeks and has sought. When asked by

Fideliter magazine, "What do you think of a possible re-opening

of a dialogue with Rome?" ABL made the following clear reply:

We do not have the same outlook on a reconciliation. Cardinal

Ratzinger sees it as reducing us, bringing us back to Vatican II. We

see it as a return of Rome to Tradition. We don't agree; it is a dialogue

of the deaf. I can't speak much of the future, mine is behind me. But if

I live a little while, supposing that Rome calls for a new dialogue,

then, I will put conditions. I shall not accept being put in the

position where I was during the [May 1988] dialogue. No more.

I will put the discussion at the doctrinal level. 'Do you agree with the

great encyclicals of all the popes who preceded you? Do you agree

with Quanta Cura of Pius IX, Immortale Dei and Libertas of Leo XIII,

Pascendi gregis of Pius X, Quas Primas of Pius XI, Humani generis of

Pius XII? Are you in full communion with these popes and their

teachings? Do you still accept the entire Anti-Modernist Oath? Are you

in favour of the social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ? If you do not

accept the doctrine of your predecessors, it is useless to talk! As

long as you do not accept the correction of the Council, in

consideration of the doctrine of these Popes, your predecessors, no

dialogue is possible.' It is useless.

-- Fideliter, quoted by Fr. Laisney in Archbishop Lefebvre and the Vatican pp.223-224 (emphasis and bracketed date added). [I added the red.]

There is MORE..............

.

Ekim · « **Reply #6 on:** January 02, 2014, 08:32:50 PM »

I recently spoke to a young SSPX priest. Fr. Hewko said that he was his retreat master prior to this young priests ordination (2009?). I told this young priest that I recently spoke to Fr. Hewko. I no sooner got the name past my lips when this entire priests body language and congenial manner abruptly changed. He became visibly irritated and verbally defensive. "Oh ya? You know Fr. Hewko?" "Oh yes Father" I said. I told him that Fr. Hewko said he was a fine young man while he was on retreat. I said nothing else. My intent was not to debate but rather to let this new young pastor know that Fr. Hewko had at least one family that openly supported him. On a second encounter, the young priest told me that "These Priests ", as called them, were sowing the seeds of confusion, causing much harm to young families. He said "frankly, what these priests are saying is simply not true". When I asked him for an example he said he just couldn't get into it at this time. He said, that in his opinion, the SSPX fight for Tradition was stronger than ever. It has been about two months and he still has not given me one example (granted, I have not had free moment to pose the topic again, but he has not pursued it either) .

On the flip side, an SSPX priest who has been ordained at least 15 years that I know of, possibly 20, said "When you seexFr. Hewko, tell him many of us are supporting him on the inside ".

So there is definitely two "camps " within the SSPX. I can only think a house divided can not stand. I would have thought however, that by now more of the "old school " SSPX priests would have had the courage to come forward.

Mary Help of Christians...Pray for us.